Again though, decentralized group that anyone can join on the fly. Could be alt-righters. The Berkley antifa avatar is pretty ironic since I'm pretty sure that's the symbol of the social democrats, since the 3 arrows refer to the 3 enemies of democracy(monarchy, communism, fascism).

Until ANTIFA starts building gulags or alt-right memers start building death camps, I'm just going to consider them both as violent posters who follow failed ideologies.

You realize the "official" one is bullshit, right? I see they have gotten more subtle with their posts, but here's a great example of a bullshit tweet.

That pic is from Phoenix, AZ, and yet they claim it is from Charlottesville? This is of a liberal gun club apparently. Hell, I posted the video of those liberal kids trying to be edgy awhile ago that this pic is taken from. Hell, one person in the pic even looks like they are probably of Hispanic origin. Final point? Red bandannas are not a white supremacist thing if I remember right.

Markenzwieback wrote:Honestly, for me both are nothing but violent political groups with the goal of a totalitarian system. Both brownshirts and Antifas primary goal was/is to silence political opposition by use of direct violence.

All of ANTIFA is for a totalitarian system? Sources please.

Anarchists, liberitarian socialists, industrial unionist, democratic socialist, minorities that just dont want to get chased through the streets by nazis, apperantly they arent real, and Antifa is 100% Stalinist...Who knew...

Shrike wrote:Again though, decentralized group that anyone can join on the fly. Could be alt-righters.

Markenzwieback wrote:Honestly, for me both are nothing but violent political groups with the goal of a totalitarian system. Both brownshirts and Antifas primary goal was/is to silence political opposition by use of direct violence.

All of ANTIFA is for a totalitarian system? Sources please.

Anarchists, liberitarian socialists, industrial unionist, democratic socialist, minorities that just dont want to get chased through the streets by nazis, apperantly they arent real, and Antifa is 100% Stalinist...Who knew...

Yeah, all those industrial unionists, democratic socialists and minorities attacking people of different political opinion and denying the freedoms of assembly and free speech because they are afraid of Nazis... But what am I discussion this with you, Doinize. We went over the entire violence in political discourse thing in PMs already and you were pretty fond of it.

In general: Anyone who goes out onto the streets to hunt down the political enemy with anything but words can easily compare to Stalinists/Nazis/SA brownshirts/any other organisation or form of authoritarianism.

No worries, as I already indicted, they may be right wing proxies. Since its a decentralized group it appears anyone can join and leave on the fly, as far as I can tell at least. Either way, CNN and Washington post have already labeled ANTIFA, whether or not that is their actual political idealogy.

One thing that I do know about communists that there is a whole spectrum of them which range from people who embrace the dictators. There are also people who acknowledge the existent of bad regimes, but say it was real communism. Then you have the various debates on which brand of communism to implement, whether it be the ideas of Trotsky, marx, do you maintain government or do you abolish government, etc. Definitely seems like a group prone to heavy infighting.

Shrike wrote:One thing that I do know about communists that there is a whole spectrum of them which range from people who embrace the dictators. There are also people who acknowledge the existent of bad regimes, but say it was real communism. Then you have the various debates on which brand of communism to implement, whether it be the ideas of Trotsky, marx, do you maintain government or do you abolish government, etc. Definitely seems like a group prone to heavy infighting.

How do you turn one communist ideology into two communist ideologies? You put two communists together in a room.

Markenzwieback wrote:Yeah, all those industrial unionists, democratic socialists and minorities attacking people of different political opinion and denying the freedoms of assembly and free speech because they are afraid of Nazis...

"Actually Industrial Unionists, DemSocs and minorities dont block Nazi ralleys, because I have decided that they dont."Fucking brilliant...

We went over the entire violence in political discourse thing in PMs already and you were pretty fond of it.

I just dont have any illusions about the role forms of violence play and always have played in politics.Politics is inherently violent, in one way or another, if you want to talk violence, you can talk about street clashes, breaking up meetings, intimidation tactics etc. but dont ignore the violence the state uses (litterally any state), that would just be hypocritical. You can say that the states violence is different, because its legal but of course it is the state defines what is legal and what is not...

In general: Anyone who goes out onto the streets to hunt down the political enemy with anything but words can easily compare to Stalinists/Nazis/SA brownshirts/any other organisation or form of authoritarianism.

That statement is just...bad...Taking what you wrote litterally:

You can compare the french resistance with the nazis...The POUM, a group that was executed by Stalinists, can easily compare to them...You just called George Orwell, of all people, a totalitarian...good job.Youth resistance in Nazi-Germany? Just as bad as the regime out to kill them, because they wont debate them on it...

I can keep going but instead im gonna give you a tip, dont make overly general statements, they are usually shit...

Shrike wrote:Since its a decentralized group it appears anyone can join and leave on the fly, as far as I can tell at least.

Doinize wrote:"Actually Industrial Unionists, DemSocs and minorities dont block Nazi ralleys, because I have decided that they dont."Fucking brilliant...

Blocking a rally as a form of civil disobedience is something entirely different than running around the streets attacking the political enemy with clubs. So yeah, my statement still stands.

Doinize wrote:I just dont have any illusions about the role forms of violence play and always have played in politics.Politics is inherently violent, in one way or another, if you want to talk violence, you can talk about street clashes, breaking up meetings, intimidation tactics etc. but dont ignore the violence the state uses (litterally any state), that would just be hypocritical. You can say that the states violence is different, because its legal but of course it is the state defines what is legal and what is not...

You justified punching people of different political opinion. And that is, by definition, something democratic discourse should not be featuring.

Doinize wrote:That statement is just...bad...Taking what you wrote litterally:

You can compare the french resistance with the nazis...The POUM, a group that was executed by Stalinists, can easily compare to them...You just called George Orwell, of all people, a totalitarian...good job.Youth resistance in Nazi-Germany? Just as bad as the regime out to kill them, because they wont debate them on it...

I can keep going but instead im gonna give you a tip, dont make overly general statements, they are usually shit...

We were talking about a democratic country (the USA) and were discussion political violence in a democratic society. So don't bring up the French resistance under enemy occupation, fighting in the Spanish Civil War or resistance in Nazi-Germany. You are thereby trying to change the terms of the discussion.

Markenzwieback wrote:running around the streets attacking the political enemy with clubs.

Because thats apperantly all that Antifa Groups do...Thats a bit reductionist dont you think? Antifa tactics go from hacking and infiltration, research and information gathering, informing the locals, outings, civil disobedience, to, yes, sometimes just plain beating the shit out of people...which can be absolutely justified in some cases.

You justified punching people of different political opinion.

And you keep downplaying fascism as muh just a different opinion...No one is going around attacking people because they disagree about idk, upper speedlimits on highways...thats a different opinion you can debate over with people..."Do minorites get to live or not" is nothing to be debated. It is not just another disagreement in politics...

Markenzwieback wrote:In general:

Markenzwieback wrote:We were talking about a democratic country (the USA) and were discussion political violence in a democratic society.

You are thereby trying to change the terms of the discussion.

oh, sure...Im doing that...To clarifiy, I didnt assume what you wrote was what you actually meant, I just took it litterally to show how bad overly general statements are...

Doinize wrote:Because thats apperantly all that Antifa Groups do...Thats a bit reductionist dont you think? Antifa tactics go from hacking and infiltration, research and information gathering, informing the locals, outings, civil disobedience, to, yes, sometimes just plain beating the shit out of people...which can be absolutely justified in some cases.

The initial article talked about exactly the point I was making, Antifa activists actively attacking people they see as their political enemies. And if you went looking on the (now banned) platform of German far-leftists you could find plenty of physical attacks against AfD, radical right wingers or other groups considered the enemy by Antifa (or however you want to call these certain groups). It escalated to the point where "activists" raided the private homes of Neo-Nazis. And while I certainly don't fancy AfD or even Neo-Nazis, our constitution grants them certain rights and protections, which should be upheld.

On the video: A person defending other people in imminent danger of being injured or killed isn't using violence as a political tool, simply because the democratic system allows for self-defense and the defense of others. To put it bluntly: When you encounter a Neo-Nazi attacking someone due to his political opinion, using violence to stop him is in itself not a political act (you might frame it as one, but its plain and simple self-defense). Attacking a Neo-Nazi not physically harming anyone is using violence as a political tool , which I am against. But if you twist the idea of self-defense to the point where the simple presence of Neo-Nazis (or anyone you disagree with, see the case of AfD) is a physical danger, something is pretty wrong. And this is my basic problem with Antifa activism, the lack of adherence to core democratic values (be it out of simple neglect or ideological reasons).

Doinize wrote:And you keep downplaying fascism as muh just a different opinion...No one is going around attacking people because they disagree about idk, upper speedlimits on highways...thats a different opinion you can debate over with people..."Do minorites get to live or not" is nothing to be debated. It is not just another disagreement in politics...

If I remember correctly, the constitutional court ruled that the simple fact of holding a Neo-Nazi opinion or voicing favors for Fascism is not against the law. Only acting upon such an opinion is. Hence, even if we (yes, we both) don't like these people, I think they should be granted full rights and protections.

Let them speak out loud and show the public how full of shit they are. Protest against them in every peaceful manner there is, but don't physically infringe upon their democratic rights. A democracy needs to uphold its core values even in the face of people who don't favor having it around. And if they try to actively abolish it, hit them with everything the state has in its arsenal.

Doinize wrote:oh, sure...Im doing that...To clarifiy, I didnt assume what you wrote was what you actually meant, I just took it litterally to show how bad overly general statements are...

And what does that change? In the context of the initial article I was referring to a democratic system when I said "in general". Hence the point that I made regarding the use of violence. War, occupation or resistance under a Fascist regime are entirely different situations to what the article talked about and what is happening in the United States.